Demoskrieg & Diaskrieg:
Spencer J. Quinn
The Two Great Truths of the Jewish Question
Physicist Niels Bohr is given a great line in the excellent biographical graphic novel Suspended in Language by Jim Ottaviani and Leland Purvis. While walking with a young Werner Heisenberg in 1924, he tells his colleague:
A great truth is a statement that is as true as its opposite . . . as opposed to a triviality, whose opposite is false. It is our job as scientists to reduce great truths to trivialities.
I feel haunted by this statement whenever I consider a certain thorny aspect of the Jewish Question. As White Nationalists, should we consider the Jewish diaspora and Israel as different heads on the same beast and envision our troubles with them as (to coin a term) Demoskrieg, that is, long-term evolutionary warfare between peoples or races? Or, rather, should we view them as separate beasts and engage more with the diaspora, since it poses a more direct threat to white interests? To coin another term, this would be Diaskrieg, or short-term evolutionary competition between different diasporas. Note that these tactics are peacetime tactics which would become irrelevant during a hot war. These describe ways in which genetically disparate populations must interact when they have competing interests and mutual enmity accrued throughout the course of history. Demoskrieg does not require that the populations be in close proximity within free societies, while Diaskrieg does. In the case of white gentiles versus Jews, both methods entail whites resisting and ultimately removing the Jewish influence in white homelands while differing solely on their treatment of Israel.
In terms of tactics, this dichotomy can be boiled down to the following:
Demoskrieg: Engaging Jews with the same weapons with which they engage whites. In this case, “weapons” refers to the reliable Jewish tactic of using blacks, browns, and aboriginals as weapons against white civilization. It also refers to its more recent flipside: the white gentile tactic of using the Palestinians as an excuse to condemn Israel.
Diaskrieg: Focusing on reversing the influence of diaspora Jews (more specifically, liberal diaspora Jews, or LDJs, as I have referred to them before) and deliberately limiting attacks on Israel, thereby giving Jews a convenient out should whites ever convince them to beat a retreat from traditionally white homelands.
These are two opposite tactics – and they both ring of truth. Further, when employed simultaneously, they work against each other, and so cannot be used in tandem. Indeed, extreme Demoskrieg harms Israel, thereby making it less likely that Israel will be a viable option for Jews who wish to return there. On the other hand, extreme Diaskrieg is the less truculent tactic, thereby allowing Jews to wage greater Demoskrieg upon whites. These tactics are both effective and mutually exclusive, which is why I suspect that behind each one lies not just truth, but a Great Truth, as described by Bohr. Their opposites are each other, and neither is trivial. Therefore, White Nationalists are beset with a pair of conflicting Great Truths when dealing with the Jewish Question.
It thus makes sense that White Nationalists, if they wish to organize in any macro sense, should probably decide on one of these tactics and stick with it. This, of course, would require an assessment of the pros and cons of Demoskrieg and Diaskrieg. This essay hopes to get the ball rolling, and in no way promises to be the final word.
The most extreme form of Demoskrieg is demographic genocide – that is, making conditions so culturally hostile to the enemy that, over time, they either assimilate genetically with other races or simply fail to adequately reproduce. Effective ways to do this include discrediting the enemy’s religion and traditions, encouraging dysgenic behavior among the enemy (such as abortion and promiscuity), and imposing multiracialism upon them. The first destroys meaningful connections the enemy has with his past, the very building blocks of racial and ethnic identity. The second limits the enemy’s ability to produce future generations. And the third provides the enemy easy access to other races as a way to encourage miscegenation and to suppress any natural feelings of supremacy in their own homelands.
Anyone familiar with Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique will recognize the above as the Demoskrieg that diaspora Jews have been waging against their white gentile hosts for well over a century now. However, it can be argued that white European gentiles also waged a kind of Demoskrieg against the Jewish diaspora throughout the nineteenth century. During this time and in various locations, whites pressured Jews to convert to Christianity and eschew stereotypical Jewish behavior and professions; to become more like gentiles, effectively. Whether this was an attempt at demographic genocide or merely benevolent assimilation is moot given that it would have caused the number of synagogues in Europe to dwindle in either case, a scenario intolerable to any self-identifying Jew back then.
Let’s assume, however, that MacDonald is correct in positing that influential Jews have been waging Demoskrieg against white populations for many years now. Let’s also assume that Israel as its own nationalistic entity apart from the Jewish diaspora has, at the very least, said nothing when Jews use the Star of David or Israel’s name in their Demoskrieg against whites. Given these two points, why shouldn’t white gentiles wage Demoskrieg in return against their Jewish tormentors? Why wouldn’t anyone bring anything less than a gun to a gunfight? Wouldn’t that be the safest bet for survival?
In the Demoskrieg model, Jewish influence, whether in New York or Tel Aviv, is considered a threat in the same way that most Jews feel threatened by white ethnocentrism, whether it is in Iceland or Utah. Therefore, it doesn’t matter where you strike the enemy, as long as you strike him. Such a mindset makes sense. Do Jews ever let geography stop them from subverting white gentile populations? Of course, both Left-wing Jews and conservative neocon Jews energetically promote non-white immigration and racial diversity in traditionally white homelands. Israel seems to as well, albeit to a lesser extent. Given the blatant double standard of these people, and how almost none of them push for the same demographic changes in Israel, the benefits of harshly condemning or punishing Israel whenever it or its Jewish citizens mistreat its Arab or non-Jewish minorities become clear. It hurts them and forces them to spend resources defensively, rather than offensively. Enough Demoskrieg against the Jews and the tables could be turned in the greater culture wars.
Despite this, there are drawbacks to whites waging Demoskrieg against the Jews. For one, it’s the Jews’ preferred fight, and I wonder if whites would be as good at it as they are. Jews, it seems, are the greatest propagandists in history. They have real energy for it, regardless of whether they are lying or telling the truth. That’s what being innately clannish and having a high average verbal IQ can do for you. So the question then becomes, is waging total Demoskrieg a battle whites can win? Given how so many whites have a weakness for altruism and xenophilia (two very Christian traits, I might add), I have my doubts. But who knows?
Another drawback is that Demoskrieg is frankly dishonest. It’s dishonest when Jews pretend to care about non-whites while promoting globalism and open borders, when all they really want is to make gentile nations safer and more lucrative for themselves. It’s also dishonest when White Nationalists make noise about the oppressed Palestinians when they would just as soon deport these same Palestinians from traditional white homelands if they could.
There’s also the question that rarely gets asked on the Jew-woke Dissident Right: Do the Israelis treat Arabs better than the Arabs treat Arabs? I would suspect that they do, given the high level of poverty, violence, war, oppression, and misogyny that exists, and has always existed, in the Arab world. If this is so, then shouldn’t we complain about Arab nations more than we complain about Israel? Further, if the Arabs are so violent and disruptive to begin with, why have truck with them at all? It’s not like the Arabs have excessive love for white people. What do whites have to gain by taking up their cause when we have troubles of our own?
Here is a thought experiment which might make this black pill less black: It can be argued that the Chinese government oppresses the Falun Gong, the Tibetans, and the Muslim Uighurs. Of these groups, how many do people on the Dissident Right mention as often as they do the Palestinians? The answer, of course, is zero. Why? Because the Chinese aren’t Jews. If there is a more elegant answer than that, I’d like to hear it.
I have a personal distaste for Demoskrieg, it’s true. How the Israelis treat the Palestinians is not terribly high on my list of concerns (especially when the South African blacks these days treat white people far worse). So when prominent people on the Dissident Right speak out against Israeli human rights abuses while remaining silent on the abuses the Palestinians commit, I tend to zone out. Such proclamations strike me as a bit insincere. On the other hand, the Jews themselves are being insincere when they complain about slavery, Jim Crow, and “white supremacy” when all they really want is to wreck white civilization one black person at a time. Insincerity is the name of the game if you wish to play Demoskrieg. So maybe calling out Israel over the Palestinians is the right thing to do after all?
Despite having several things going for it, Diaskrieg is the riskier strategy since it employs a lighter touch regarding the Jewish Question. Its underlying assumption is that White Nationalists and Jewish nationalists can ultimately coexist on the planet – provided they mostly stay within the bounds of their respective nations. This shifts the axis of struggle from gentile versus Jew, as in the Demoskrieg model, to ethnonationalism versus globalism. Since both models adhere to canonical White Nationalist tenets, yet promote mutually exclusive modes of behavior, this shift must be considered as comprehensively and with as much impartiality as possible.
If history vindicates the Demoskrieg model, then Diaskrieg will end in disaster for whites. This will resemble how Tsar Nicholas II and his government tragically underestimated the intent and ability of the Bolsheviks and other Leftist agitators on the eve of the Russian Revolution. One side was performing a measured police action, while the other was waging total revolutionary war. I have to admit, imagining a future three hundred years hence with hardly any white people left in Western Europe and North America, while tens of millions of Jews still dance and sing “Hava Nagila” in Israel, terrifies me. Demoskrieg, despite its flaws, might very well be the best way of preventing this from happening. But it worries me because it must suppress truth in order to be effective. Truth has a way of bubbling to the surface of history eventually and punishing those who ignore it.
The main attraction of Diaskrieg for me is its philosophical consistency. A serious ethnonationalist must not be opposed to ethnonationalism anywhere. This means that the Jews have a right to call the shots in Israel in the same way that the Japanese have a right to call the shots in Japan, and the Norwegians have a right to call the shots in Norway, etcetera. A White Nationalist simply claims the same rights for white people in North America. Greg Johnson makes this point often in The White Nationalist Manifesto. There is also a rhetorical value to Diaskrieg in that it forces the enemies of whites to be consistent if they wish to condemn White Nationalism. If White Nationalism is immoral, then Jewish nationalism must be as well . . . unless one takes the hypocritical position of being a Jewish supremacist. Escaping a logical chokehold like that would take a lot of unseemly wriggling, indeed.
A big proponent of this system is Vox Day. Despite being a race realist who has issues with White Nationalism, Day speaks often about how the “real battle is nationalism versus global imperialism,” as he put it recently. Day will not hesitate to criticize Jews qua Jews if they support globalism. At the same time, he staunchly supports Israeli nationalists as brothers in arms on the Dissident Right. Certainly, Diaskrieg has its own kinks to work out – strident ethnic nationalism may have played critical roles in many wars of the past, for example – but its ideological rigor, as expressed by Vox Day, coupled with its recent successes in nationalistic Eastern Europe, make it hard to refute.
Further, there is the obvious benefit of allowing Israel to thrive so that when the inevitable Götterdämmerung occurs between Right and Left – complete with flying Valkyries, rings of power, and fat ladies singing – diaspora Jews will have a convenient place to go. They already get a frosty welcome on the Dissident (and very white) Right and are currently being squeezed out of an increasingly anti-white Left which views them as white (or, worse, as Jews). When the middle finally fails to hold, as it is bound to do in any polarized society, the majority of diaspora Jews will realize that they have no permanent home outside of Israel. If Israel is in any shape to take them, they will go there. If not, then the diaspora will fight that much harder to keep their place among the gentiles – which is what we as White Nationalists certainly don’t want.
There is precedence for this. Again, on the eve of the Russian Revolution, many Russian Jews looked down upon Zionist Jews as traitors who wished to shirk their duties in the Revolution. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn has a scene depicting this in Chapter 47 of his recently-translated historical novel, March 1917 (Node III, Part 1 of his opus The Red Wheel). Further, it was no secret that the Bolsheviks held the Zionists in extremely low esteem. Leon Trotsky once referred to the founder of Zionism, Theodore Herzl, as a “repulsive figure” and a “shameless adventurer,” according to Louis Rapoport in his 1990 work, Stalin’s War Against the Jews. Remember, this was several decades prior to the formation of Israel. Zionism was still a pipe dream in 1917.
This raises an interesting question: Would the Jews of Russia have fallen so wholeheartedly for the false god of Communism had there been a thriving Jewish ethnostate beckoning to them? They clearly weren’t happy with the Tsar and not terribly comfortable with the Russian hoi polloi. I would argue that yes, the presence of Israel would have enticed far more Jews out of Russia and away from Communism. For proof, I offer how Israel did just that during the Khrushchev and Brezhnev years. According to Rapoport, anti-Semitism made a comeback in the Soviet Union after Stalin’s death. Despite being milder than the anti-Semitism of the Tsarist period, it gave rise to the “refusenik” phenomenon and caused hundreds of thousands of Jews to emigrate, most heading to Israel.
Imagine hundreds of thousands of Jews emigrating out of the United States . . . all because they have a place which will take them.
It seems that Demoskrieg is attractive because it promises White Nationalists complete victory over the Jews. At the same time, however, it helps justify the Jewish Demoskrieg against white people, and thereby risks complete defeat. Taken to its logical extreme, it locks the doors of the Octagon, so to speak, allowing only the victor to come out alive. On the other hand, Diaskrieg leaves those Octagon doors unlocked, potentially easing the crisis by shifting the emphasis onto universal ethnonationalism rather than a more bellicose “ethnonationalism-for-me-and-not-for-thee” attitude. This plan is certainly elegant, but will work only if elements on both sides actively push for a peaceful resolution to our current troubles. I know there are elements on the White Nationalist side who do . . . because I am one of them. Whether a critical mass of Jews feels the same way remains to be seen.
Demoskrieg and Diaskrieg exemplify two Great Truths as described by Niels Bohr. They are opposites of each other, and they are not trivial. I hope that this essay has demonstrated how confounding it is to reduce one or both of these Truths to trivialities – and how important it is as well. Of course, we could wait for history to do this for us. By that point, however, it might be too late.
Spencer J. Quinn is a frequent contributor to Counter-Currents and the author of the novel White Like You.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
Christmas Special: Merry Christmas, Infidels!
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 561: An All-Star Thanksgiving Weekend Special
Black Friday Special: It’s Time to STOP Shopping for Christmas
We Get the Crime We Deserve
Nueva Derecha vs. Vieja Derecha, Capítulo 12: La Cuestión Cristiana en el Nacionalismo Blanco
Let Elon Cook
Should We Defend Anti-Semitic Literature?
The Spanish Protests of 2023